Cohen: What will late-night hosts talk about now?

Column photo

By Ben Cohen

Monday, November 17, 2008

“Change is here,” President-elect Barack Obama said while speaking to throngs of supporters in Chicago during his acceptance speech, which was broadcast around the world. The election had finally ended with a bang, and That One had emerged victorious. With this victory come many things, including a new era for racial equality in the country (I hope), a renewed trust in America by the international community (likely) and apparently a new puppy for the Obama daughters (definitely, or the whole speech would have been ruined).

There was something that President Obama… Actually, before I go on, could we just savor that a bit? Mmmm, President Obama…

photo

Photo by Max Rinkel

OK, back on topic. There was something that the soon-to-be-president did not mention, something that will be dramatically different once his administration takes over. What will those most important members of our media, the hosts of late-night talk shows, make fun of now?

For eight years, George W. Bush has been generous enough to take time out of his busy schedule as president of the United States of America, most powerful nation on the planet, to provide ample fodder for Jay Leno and his contemporaries.

If David Letterman needed to pad out his monologue a bit, all he needed to do was turn on the news and listen to Bush speak, and he had a wealth of bad jokes, mispronounced words and other bits of evidence which point to the president possibly being a poorly programmed robot.

The rise of Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and the like has made late-night comedy the primary news outlet for many young people. “Saturday Night Live” even flirted with running a half-hour version of its popular “Weekend Update” news segment on the air on Thursdays.

There will always be government types to make fun of, but it is never that much fun if there isn’t a president to constantly rib, as we’ve become used to. Most commanders in chief just scream out to be insulted. Bush gave off the impression that he left his office reluctantly, and most people of my generation know Dana Carvey’s impression of him better than the actual man or his policies. Bill Clinton had a libido that we all claim to be embarrassed about, even though about half of us are secretly proud of. And Bush was once nearly assassinated by a pretzel.

As of yet, Obama has yet to display any really humiliating personality traits. With at least four years in office, he’s bound to let slip at some point that he is deathly afraid of the color fuschia or that the sound of a ringing bell makes him think he’s Sean Connery. The problem is, we haven’t seen it yet. The man looked so damn dignified during is campaign that I’d almost be willing to believe he isn’t going to do something incredibly stupid that makes the country roll its collective eyes.

But for the sake of Leno, Stewart and all of the other trustworthy journalists out there, I hope something comes up soon.

— — Cohen is a Topeka senior in political science.

Comments

Abita (anonymous) says...

Csommerville is right. There is no point to this piece. This should never have made it off your editor's desk. Someone in the room needs to call you up and ask (tell) you to rewrite it. They shouldn’t be accepting this.

First, how many black families feel equal all of a sudden? Did membership in the KKK suddenly decrease? Obama winning the presidency doesn't create racial equality just like affirmative action didn’t all of a sudden create racial equality.

Second, Obama doesn't just make everything go away in terms of our relationship with other counties. He's probably not going to remove missile defense in Poland. Russia will still be upset. He will likely move to reduce the benefits to companies that outsource employment, thus we are sending less business to other counties. Pakistan and India are just two countries who won't be pleased. He is not a proponent of NAFTA, so he probably won't do much to support isolated trade in the region. Mexico, Candida, Central America won't like that. But, hey, he is going to decrease our ability to produce domestic oil, so Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq should love us.

Cohn, you really need to evaluate your ability to write this column. This was about as bad as a Maureen Dowd op-ed.

November 17, 2008 at 6:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

AlexNichols (anonymous) says...

Jon Stewart will be fine, as he tends to target the ridiculousness of the media just as often as he does politicians. And the media will always be ridiculous.

As for Jay Leno, he hasn't been funny since 1995.

November 18, 2008 at noon ( | suggest removal )

Geiiga (anonymous) says...

Leno was funny in 1995? That's not my recollection.

November 18, 2008 at 12:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

AlexNichols (anonymous) says...

Well, I was six years old at the time, so it's possible I'm misremembering.

The point is, Leno sucks.

November 18, 2008 at 1:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

BCohen (anonymous) says...

Mmmmm, President Leno....

November 18, 2008 at 2:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

augusta (anonymous) says...

Was there any content in this article? Can the Kansan print another sudoku puzzle in place of the next Cohen article? Just a thought...

November 18, 2008 at 8:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

BCohen (anonymous) says...

Without me, what would you kids have to complain about? Aside from anybody else who dares write from a perspective that isn't your own, I mean.

November 19, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Abita (anonymous) says...

It's not that you are writing from a different perspective. It's that you aren't providing anything of value in your columns. Try this technique: Grab an interesting fact, something reasonably verifiable, and explain why Obama's stance related to that fact, not just change, has something to do with Kansan readers. Columnists are responsible for doing research, using facts and making an argument. You have a responsibility to readers and to The Kansan.

November 19, 2008 at 11:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Abita (anonymous) says...

Wrong, that's the wrong word. Effective would be if you engaged in opinionated and ideal driven debate. Look at some of the forums running under NYT opinion columns, that's what effective is. Now look at yours. We would love to engage in some type of debate with you, but you don't give us anything to discuss other than lack of real content.

You ought to be fired for the first paragraph of that last comment. Ask your editor to point out Malcolm Gibson in the journalism building. He will tell you what an opinion column is supposed to read like. This is not it.

November 19, 2008 at 11:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

augusta (anonymous) says...

Dear Ben,

Oh so now we are "kids"?? That is worse than being called "that guy".

November 20, 2008 at 2:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Advertisement